So, how do we know what X level of evil is? How does the person proposing the Problem of Evil as an argument against God know we have reached X level of evil without arbitrarily deciding it to be so? In other words, how does the atheist know that the X level of evil is reached and actually exists? How would we identify the X level of evil and differentiate it from levels of evil below X? How much evil is too much and how do we know that it is too much? Is a single death justifiable? How about five? Ten? Thousands? What is the support for this conclusion? Anyway we support our conclusion appears arbitrary. Thus, the Problem of Evil is not a charge against the existence of God. — Chany

I think this is probably what van Inwagen was arguing for. The idea, I think, is that if God had prevented Evil Happening x from happening, then people would be asking why God didn't prevent Evil Happening y from happening...and so on and so forth.

I'm not sure about this argument, it rubs me the wrong way, but maybe that's just because I'm not comfortable with the idea of a God actually existing. However I think a bigger problems looms that van Inwagen failed to adequately address, which is that of God's ability to prevent suffering from the start by altering our choices.

Early on he talks about one of the common atheist arguments in regards to compatibilist free will - that God had the power to "force our hand" to do good by making us in such-and-such way and the environment in such-and-such way. van Inwagen uses Orwell's 1984 (a horribly over-used example IMHO) to show that forcing people to do good is not really "free will".

But I think this fails because it's obvious that we don't have the ability to do things much worse. We don't have the ability to snap our fingers and fire nukes from our eyeballs. We can't fly and spy on people from above. We can't read each others' minds. So we have limitations already, but van Inwagen still wants to believe we are free. Now, God would seem to have had an arbitrary line to draw here as well - or did he? I think it's reasonable to believe that God could have made things a little better than they are right now without impinging on our free will in any noticeable way. The fact that we are so tempted to do bad things and have the ability to do so many terrible actions means that, even though we may have "free will", we have the odds stacked against us in doing good actions. I find it hard to accept that free will is intrinsically good if it is made in such a way that it leads to disproportionately large amounts of evil.

I wasn't particularly focused on your brand of antinatalism, but I will say I disagree with it. It's not just aesthetic, it's a definite ethical problem.

I think that could be generalized and applied to basically any marginal ethical/political point of view, regardless of its validity. Radicals like to pride themselves as being the few noble individuals who fight for justice for the forgotten. And fuck everyone else.

Anti-natalists take great pride in the fact that hardly anyone seems to problematize procreation like they do. Anti-natalism's obscurity is therefore perhaps its greatest strength. — Thorongil

Yo I'm gonna steal this (Y) 8-)

I'll give credit, of course.

As you say, Inwagen put those outside the bounds of his argument. So I'm not sure why you want to change the goal-posts. — apokrisis

No, he puts animal suffering outside, not natural disasters and freak accidents.

It is planned and deliberate, not a reaction.

How would a determinist explain such a decision to deliberately jump in the air? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

What caused you to plan and deliberate to jump in the air?

But Ingwagen is already accepting that God wants there to be freewill at that point. That must be some ultimate good. And so the price you pay for that is having humans making bad or mad choices. — apokrisis

Right, that's what I thought he meant, as I said in the beginning. That human free will is good, and God's reconciliation plan requires that this free will be maintained.

But you should have also read the part about horrors not caused by humans. Natural disasters, freak accidents, and finally animal suffering (which he accepts as outside the bounds of the argument).

An unexpected first reply. But I don't understand how it's relevant. The question is: if God could have prevented a terrible horror from occurring, why did he not? van Inwagen's answer, I think, is that God already prevents a whole lot more terrible horrors from occurring but has to decide on an arbitrary line on how much horror exists, because (I think??) horror is somehow necessary for God's plan to work. I don't see why you needed to include Guassian statistical errors or powerlaw distribution or whatever, especially since if we're theists all of these things exist because God created the world. In fact I'm not entirely sure what the point was that you were trying to convey.

The fact that many of the things we find to be of good character or virtue in a person are that which help meliorate against the many things we find to be bad in people makes me think misanthropy is not entirely wrong. A courageous person may go fight in a war - a war created by humans. A compassionate person may go becomes a medical aid in a poverty-stricken country - a country created this way by corrupt and selfish humans. Humans create disasters that have to be fixed by other humans.

But I think we have the capability to acting otherwise and having good intentions. A lot of misanthropic beliefs stem from conceptions of humans as being selfish and egoistic, always out for themselves and ready to stomp all over everyone else if it comes to it. That is empirically false and ethically repugnant and the fact that we recognize it as ethically repugnant means we aren't secretly egoistic turds.

Conquest of Abundance by Paul Feyerabend.

When you focus right down to it, every single behaviour and action from eating to love and even death can be sourced right down to a mechanism just to sustain the continuation of life. — ThinkingMatt

Is this post simply a mechanism meant to sustain the continuation of life?

What about actions that are clearly detrimental to the continuation of life, like suicide?

Anything that isn't us specifically focused on surviving is killing time. Life can be brutal but it can also be easy-going, to the point where you have vast stretches of time in between procreative acts in which you simply..."persist". All civilization seems to be the management of everything that happens in between sex acts and sleep. It is how we stay alive long enough to make babies. From a purely evolutionary perspective it doesn't seem like there would be any real difference between living in civilization or living in cryo-stasis, so long as you procreate in between sessions. Whatever passes on your genes is "successful".

Bucking the system may not be evolutionary successful but it's hella satisfying. I guess that goes to show that what is satisfying may not be the "best" for the survival of the species. But it also is extremely absurd to look at all the complexity in life and realize the only reason it's here is because it helps people persist for long stretches of time in between sex.

Our common notion of causality requires the passage of time. What does it mean for something to "begin" to exist, or "have a cause" outside of time?

Some people do not see the vanity in it. The ironic thing is that the more reflection we have on it, the more it becomes in vain, the more repetitive and unnecessary it seems. Why do people need to go through it in the first place is a bit different than, we are already here an we get pleasure out of things. — schopenhauer1

I think there's also an element of disbelief accompanying all this. Like it's actually hard to believe, not because it's far-fetched but simply because how underwhelming and unsatisfactory it is. It's not until the end of our lives that we really get it, after we've gone through life and seen it all happen.

So to summarize, there is the "goal-seeking" primary need for need, which we do not need to self-reflect on, and then there is a more abstract philosophical problem of why more "to do" in the first place. — schopenhauer1

So we have the goal-seeking need for need, as in, we need more needs because needs entail goals and goals are good, and we have the "philosophical" problem of why we need to have goals to begin with?

I think the only time "why" comes into the picture is when the attainment of a goal fails to compensate for the striving towards it. Otherwise the "why" would easily be answered by: because it feels good, it gives me pleasure, I enjoy doing it, etc. Why do we keep making philosophical posts on this forum? It's pretty repetitive, cyclic, and not much seems to get done - but presumably we find some degree of satisfaction that compensates. It's worth it.

Only when a job becomes annoying and difficult do people start to wonder if they should quit. But maybe they keep going because there's another reason to keep the job, to provide for the family, pay the bills, etc.

But if life takes more than it gives (which is what I see to be the umph behind instrumentality), then what reason is there to keep living, and make more people who will live?

So I think the part where I might be disagreeing with you is that I find enjoyment to be positively good and a justifying reason for doing (some) things. All things considered, if something brings me pleasure then I have a good reason to do it and keep doing it, even if it's repetitive. Maybe if I see how repetitive it is and wonder if there's anything "more" to life will I cease to find pleasure in what I am doing - but that's the problem, really, I cease to find pleasure in it.

Your vision of no struggle would be something I would not even recognize as it would not be life as we know it. The struggle of being faced with "to do" or more accurately "to deal" with life, is structural. — schopenhauer1

Right, precisely.

I suppose what I was trying to get at is that, even if we recognize the repetitiveness of existence (existence being not simply that which exists right now but that which exists in the past and the future as well), how it's a cycle of birth, decay, death...why should this necessarily be a bad thing? I agree that it is problematic but I don't think it's problematic in itself.

Why do these needs need to be brought forth to a new generation, ad infinitum, until species or universal death is the question more or less. — schopenhauer1

Say nobody suffered. Say we all loved life, and death was not feared but calmly accepted without any sadness. What would be wrong with instrumentality?

Your focus on needs makes me believe that it's the struggle that is problematic. If everything was easy-peasy lemon-squeezy there'd be nothing wrong with an absurd life.

So I think the problem of instrumentality is that there is no end to the "but why?" questions - how could there be?

Why do I exist? Because my parents had sex. But why did they have sex? Because they wanted to. But why did they want to? Because they're human beings. But why do human beings exist? Because they're part of the evolutionary chain of life. But why does life exist? Because the Earth had the right conditions for it to exist. But why does the Earth exist? Because the solar system exists. But why does the solar system...the galaxy...the galactic cluster...the universe exist? Because...because...because...full stop. Somewhere along the line something exists simply because it exists.

So any sort of reason, purpose, teleology exists within a system that already exists. But this base system cannot have a purpose itself, because purpose implies that something needs to get done, but self-evidently if there is only one being in existence, nothing needs to get done. It's also the case that something cannot come into being on its own accord, unless it already exists. So it seems that anything that comes into being can have a purpose but that which has no beginning cannot. But it cannot be that a being that comes into being has a purpose for itself, for it did not create itself. So the purpose is imposed on it from something else. Which eventually leads us back to the timeless substance with no purpose in its existence. So ultimately there is no fundamental purpose for anything. The universe cannot have a purpose for its being unless we postulate the existence of another world, which merely kicks the can down the road.

So perhaps instrumentality is a meaningless issue, although I suspect it isn't. If nothing can ultimately have any purpose at all, then what does it mean for us to wonder why things exist? If it's impossible for something to have ultimate purpose, then can it really be bad that it has no ultimate purpose? What would need to be the case in order to satisfy the problem of instrumentality?

Probably the answer is that we humans need reasons for things and the absence of any is discouraging. Just as we need justice even if there isn't any. Or beauty when there isn't any. etc

From Will To Power:

"At the same time I grasped that my instinct went into the opposite direction from Schopenhauer's: toward a justification of life, even at its most terrible, ambiguous, and mendacious; for this I had the formula Dionysian. Against the theory that an "in-itself of things" must necessarily be good, blessed, true, and one, Schopenhauer's interpretation of the "in-itself" as will was an essential step; but he did not understand how to deify this will: he remained entangled in the moral-Christian ideal. Schopenhauer was still so much subject to the dominion of Christian values that, as soon as the thing-in-itself was no longer "God" for him, he had to see it as bad, stupid, and absolutely reprehensible. He failed to grasp that there can be an infinite variety of ways of being different, even of being god."

I'm not well-versed in Nietzsche, but one thing I've retained from my reading of him is that Nietzsche thought the "ascetic" pessimism of Schopenhauer and his acolytes was detrimental to the flourishing of "great" people. Nietzsche did not reject pessimism but he tried to find a different way of approaching it in a way that ultimately affirmed life, because there are things in life that are beautiful, sublime, etc. At the core of his thought seems to be this notion of "health" - that no matter the circumstances the "healthy" person is able to flourish, and that the ascetics were really simply sick and diseased.

So Nietzsche was concerned that the influence of Schopenhauer's pessimism on the continent was negatively impacting the lives of people who would otherwise go on and do great things. This of course includes the production of music which Nietzsche criticized (like Wagner et al). It seems as though Nietzsche thought reading Schopenhauer dissolved potential in people. Nietzsche seemed to have wanted to instill a new sense of purpose and meaning in people so this wouldn't keep happening.

Nietzsche's philosophy was a product of the current cultural shift happening in the continent at the time. He's important, sure, but he is studied too much and given too much credit for ideas that weren't even his per se. It wasn't just Schopenhauer ---> Nietzsche, it was Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, Frauenstadt, Duhring, von Hartmann, Mainlander, Bahnsen, etc etc.

It might be the case that Nietzsche is so wildly popular simply because ascetic pessimism is not altogether that satisfactory. Sooner or later people get bored and want more and it's refreshing to hear someone speak about active power and drama and achievement and heroism and all that.

What about Euthyphro, do the gods love what is just because it is just or is it just because the gods love it?

If morality derived its legitimacy from authority, then there would be no reason to be moral if there was no authority to enforce morality. But that's wrong. Morality tells us to act in a certain way even if there's nobody there to make sure we do.

For certainly if morality required authority to be legitimate, then it really doesn't exist. It's just authority, or rather, sheer power.

I would have thought authority would have derived its legitimacy from morality, not vice versa.

To be weak-willed is to suggest that the opposite exists. Weak-willed exists in relation to something else. If it's the state of everyone, then it's not specifically weak. So, if the will of humanity is weak, it suggests the idea of a strong will; the strong will that we could achieve; the strong will of a higher being, etc. — Noble Dust

If you haven't read Tolstoy I highly suggest you do. In A Confession, he explains how he thinks there are four general types of people:

1.) Those who fail to understand the human condition (the ignorant).
2.) Those who understand but focus on maximizing their pleasure (the hedonists).
3.) Those who understand and are able to commit suicide (the strong).
4.) Those who understand and who are unable to commit suicide (the weak).

The minority is definitely in 3.) And personally I would say most people are a combination of 1, 2 and 4.); most people have a vague inkling of their condition but wash their fears away with cheap pleasures. There's a few people who get a little beyond this and try to embrace life or come up with some dumb reason for living but they're usually obnoxious and twat-like.

Also I would like to point out that failing to have any good reason to live does not necessarily mean you have a reason to die. Maybe you don't have a good reason to live or die, but life comes before death so you end up living for a while longer. Or maybe you have a good reason not to die - but that is not an affirmation of life. It is simply what I said earlier, a reason not to die is a reason to kick the can down the road, to procrastinate on suicide.

That is, of course, until you inevitably submerge back under the cultural barrier and forget all about this for a while.

Ah, so "you" really means "most people." I find complaining about what cannot be changed to be rather tiresome. Condemning the masses for their ignorance, myopia, and credulity on a philosophy forum is merely preaching to the choir and makes you sound smug. — Thorongil

By most people I mean to say the vast majority. Not including those incapable of higher-level abstract thought, young children or the occasional and genuine genius. Psychology doesn't just apply to the "masses" that you seem to have a distaste for. But I don't know maybe you have a good reason for living, but I don't have high expectations if I am to be honest. I don't think you or anyone else has a good reason for living because I do not think there are good reasons for living that aren't dishonest, contrived or just plain dumb.

So every death is a suicide? — Noble Dust

Or a failure, yes.

Weak-willed as opposed to what? — Noble Dust

As opposed to not weak-willed? Strong-willed? Idk what you would call it. We lack the guts.

How is the word "satisfied" predicated in that sentence? — Noble Dust

?

I mean sure you can "choose" to live but really what that means is that you choose to procrastinate your suicide.

Trying to find a real reason to live is an exercise in excuse-making. We all do it cause we're weak willed. Pretending otherwise is obnoxious tbh.

There's something twisted yet satisfying in showing people's reasons to live to be empty and shallow. It's twisted because you make them suffer but it's satisfying to see a false idol crumble. It's as if a reason to live is to show that there is no reason to live. mhm

Why do you insist on being a mind reader here — Thorongil

Not mind reading but by studying human psychology which is close enough. Most people live out of habit or because they fear death. There's really no "decision" to live usually.

You can choose to be a carpenter.

You can choose to be a painter.

You can choose to be a desk-job worker.

You can choose to be a scientist.

You can choose to be a philosopher.

But all of this gravitates around the choice to continue to be. You exist, but why do you continue to exist? Presumably because it gives you satisfaction, or at least because you fear death and/or have not really considered life to be a form of momentum. And that's about it really.

There isn't any.

I've been increasingly impressed by Cioran. Reading him sometimes feels like ripping a band-aid off. It's like, y'oww, I was not prepared for that but I'm glad it happened.

But I don't really play favorites, because that's when you narrow your perspective and become one of those insufferable dick-sucking acolytes. :-d

The thing about medication, and if you don't 'need' it, then better live without it than become dependant on it. I might see if I can switch around some of the stuff I am taking and see if some newer medication might help. — Question

Sure but it's probably better than self-medicating with alcohol or some kind of substance.

I've wondered if I have schizophrenia myself. I have been diagnosed with moderate OCD, mostly mental obsessions as well as depression but I notice in myself an underlying paranoia and anxiety that isn't really focused or directed at anything in particular. I've also wondered if I might be on the autism spectrum in any way, like Asperger's. I definitely do not do the "normal" things "normal" people do and obsess over my projects to the detriment of everything else in my life and find it hard to connect or care about a lot of the things "normal" people do.

I've made it this far but I wonder if I wouldn't benefit from some sort of medication.

I think that if you see suicide as a good thing, at least in some cases, it can help make it less of a scary thing to think about. Sometimes death is precisely what is needed to solve a problem. Also remember that most suicide attempts are failures, I think the statistic for adults is like 1 in 25 attempts are successful, and for younger people it's something like 1 in 200 or 300 or something ridiculous like that. Part of what makes suicide so tempting is how easy it seems to be to do, like you take a gun and pop yourself in the head, or chug a bottle of pills, no big deal or anything. But apparently it's a lot harder to kill yourself than your imagination makes it seem.

That being said I think if we lacked psychological repression techniques and were perfectly rational beings we would probably all be lining up for euthanasia.

I've found suicidal thoughts are easier to tolerate if I usually have them. It might be easier to live life without suicidal thoughts but it's a lot harder to deal with them when they come back randomly and with greater force. And they always do. Better to be comfortably numb to these thoughts than crippled with a sudden drop.

No.

But is it ethical for you to do so? It seems you likely had to actively search out such a file, as opposed to it falling into your lap. — Thorongil

Believe it or not it actually did kinda fall into my lap.

I'm not violating copyright law simply by reading what someone else has uploaded. If they hadn't uploaded it, I probably would not have read it.

David Benatar - The Human Predicament

Better-than is not equivalent to good. That's it.

yeah probably he's smart af when it comes to biology

damn it's been too long since I've heard the word symmetry, I had no idea how much I needed it until now

hey, apo's back, nice

But, even just on principle, given that the Sun is the origin of the Earth and us, and given that, in our sky every day, it's the energy-source for Earth's life, isn't there something offensive and objectionable about throwing our garbage into it, or even doing investigative flybys through the solar corona? — Michael Ossipoff

I don't see why we should view the Sun as sacred. We aren't throwing garbage into it, we are putting a satellite into orbit that will eventually be consumed by the Sun. Perhaps this satellite will return useful data that will save lives. Who knows. I highly doubt NASA is just half-assing it and assuming the probe isn't going to screw something up with the Sun.

It's like putting flags on the top of the Himalayas. Long after humanity has gone, the flags will flap away and the mountains will stand on the own once more. If you think about it, the elements used to create the probe came from stellar explosions in the past. The elements are just being returned back to where they came from in some sense.